The Los Angeles County Registrar–Recorder Office today officially designated the Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan as Measure M on the November 8, 2016 ballot.

Measure M, brought forward by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), is an expenditure plan that would fund a wide variety of transit and highway projects; local street improvements; programs for seniors, students and the disabled, and more over the next four decades.

“Measure M addresses many of the critical transportation needs caused by our aging infrastructure and expected population growth,” said Metro Board Chair John Fasana.

Measure M asks voters to increase the countywide sales tax by a half-cent and continue the existing Measure R tax after it’s set to expire in 2039 until voters decide to change it.

The plan includes a host of major highway and transit projects across the county and many other programs. These include keeping fares affordable for seniors, students and the disabled; improving local streets and sidewalks; earthquake retrofitting bridges; improving freeway traffic flow; expanding the rail and bus system; enhancing bike and pedestrian connections, and; keeping the system maintained and in good working condition. The tax measure also embraces technology and innovation to adapt as transportation evolves.

“This plan came from the people, for the people, through a collaborative process where our partners across the county, and the general public, have helped craft the way we position the region for current and future transportation needs,” said Metro CEO Phillip A. Washington.

As I indicated previously, Metro should post a brief summary of each project giving details of what specifically is envisioned, the rationale and, more important, the projected tangible and intangible benefits of each item, as well as the time frame and estimated expenditures.

Perhaps Metro could assign a priority to each proposed item to give the reader some indication of the importance of each item.

Finally, will Metro be able to borrow against the future revenue stream or will Metro have to work on a day-to-day basis? If borrowing is feasible, what are the anticipated savings of so doing and, more important, which critical projects could be accomplished sooner?

What a joke. A measure on the ballot to build light rail not where it is needed but instead where there is the most political pressure. Light rail and freeway improvements are needed in central Los Angeles not in areas where live stock out numbers humans. Where is the busiest east – west corridor in Los Angeles County addressed? Where is improvements to one of the busiest freeways day and night addressed? Vote “NO” on this boondoggle and wait until the MTA comes forward with a plan that addresses the transit needs of our population instead of the easiest and most political backed plan currently being put forward much of which none of us will ever see completed.

This is the very reason why Metro shold post more details of each item proposed. In particular, these summaries should discuss how each item dove-tails with each other and, more important, fits into the entire picture.

The line is called the Expo line. Also, don’t know if you heard, but it was a problem with the company that was first awarded the contract to build the new cars. It was not a Metro caused issue that resulted in a 1 year delay in the start of the delivery of cars. Having to restart the process caused the delay. The new vendor is delivering cars at good rate and this temporary problem will be over soon enough. Metro’s choice to open the Gold and Expo line extensions sooner rather than later has been proven, by ridership numbers to be the right one.

So you would be happy if they had continued with a contractor that was uanble to supply quality vehicles at the price agreed on? I am glad they held their suppliers accountable and found a new one that can build the rail cars within budget.

In any event they will have enough light rail vehicles in a year or so.

Voting “No” on this Measure is another stepping stone to prolong Los Angeles’ drought in terms of public transportation. Thanks to all kinds of opposition, when will residents of LA ever get a usable public system in place? Public transportation is what courages people to stay off the freeway.

Riders who are riding Metro should be aware that that Purple extension to the west is underway, and the Regional Connector is scheduled to be completed in a few years, which will result in one rail line (YES no transfer) through downtown LA when commuting from EAST to WEST. If we can get this measure pass this November, hopefully all the ongoing projects can speed up due to additional funding.

Yes there are always going to be politics, and yes there are always going to be mis-used of funds and all types of bureaucracy involved, but I believe Metro truly aims to provide a better transport infrastructure for residents of LA and this measure will be a big cornerstone for it

I am disappointed that Metro did not include any details about service improvements, safety (i.e. deploying security forces on trains, preventing passenger disturbance/annoyance/harassment), fare inspection (i.e. turnstile) at rail stations. Trains are old, dirty, smelly, lack of maintenance and the service times are ridiculously bad, and Metro does not seem to do anything about it.

No matter how well constructed the system is, people will not ride if safety remains a top concern.

Here’s the thing, I really want to vote yes on this, but not with the current timeline. I’m also perfectly fine with most of the projects this measure will help fund, but 2050 deadline for some projects?? Really??

Let’s just stop with the half-cent measures, go back to the drawing board and present a measure that will give us a full 1 cent raise in sales taxes in exchange for accelerating these projects that can be completed at least 15 years sooner, and actually include a Purple Line extension to Santa Monica.

This is why Metro should be allowed to issue bonds that are paid off with future revenues. In this way, construction of many critical parts of the network can be accelerated. It legislation is required, then it should be passed ASAP, probably in the next legislative session.

Metro should identify now which projects which could be accelerated by issuing bonds.

Finally, why is Metro responsible for freeway projects such as the I5, I110, and I710, and other highway projects? Should this not be the sole responsibility of Caltrans and the Federal Government which supposedly pays 90% of the cost of interstate highway projects?

Using a regressive sales tax should not be used for projects that should be paid for by the progressive gas tax which should have been increased and then indexed to inflation long ago. The State and Federal Highway Trust Funds, and not Metro, should be funding these freeway projects.

The goal should be to build out from Central Los Angeles not the plan currently being proposed. Why another extension to the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley when that area is served by METRO LINK? Why sever the Gold Line near Little Tokyo when a double turn-out could connect both the Expo Line and Blue Line and still allow those on the Gold Line to continue their journey WITHOUT transferring. The true reason the Connector is being built at this time is the total screw up created when both the Blue Line and Expo Line’s terminated in the same small terminal at Seventh and Flower. When one reads the proposals we see duplication of rail service in many cases while huge areas in the county are disregarded although some routes could provide more service than any of the current routes in service or proposed. Lately why such long delays in construction. Henry Huntington’s Pacific Electric built the Long Beach Line in six months over much of the same route the LACTC took over three years to construct the Blue Line. P.E. had more primitive equipment including the use of horses to transport materials yet was able to surpass the LACTC in construction procedures. For those unfamiliar with the techniques the MTA uses today, they start at one end and work towards the other. The P.E. started at both ends and in the middle and worked towards the other crews.

Mass rail transit should be restored to Los Angeles but the current MTA is both unwilling and unable under it’s current leadership.

The Metro Gold Line and the Metrolink SB Line cover two different transit corridors with two different clientele. The Gold Line is first and foremost local light rail along the 210 corridor. It is designed for intra-area transportation. It is comparable to the various subways in NYC. The SB Line is a regional commuter rail primarily along the 10 corridor. It is designed for inter-area transportation. It is comparable to the Long Island Railroad in the NYC area. These lines serve very different needs. A commuter wanting to take mass transit from Pomona to Pasadena currently. does not have a viable option. The SB Line in Pomona would run them through the 10 corridor, and would be inefficient; they otherwise would have to take a long bus. A second Gold Line extension would serve the Pomona area more effectively.

If you would check ridership throughout the MTA and Foothill systems it would be all to clear where light rail should be built. The Two/ Two-seventeen runs about every half hour all night long and the four line runs every twenty minutes all night long. The headway during the the day is five minutes along Santa Monica Bl. with most Line 704 buses going from Downtown L.A. to Santa Monica. The average commute time via auto from Santa Monica to Downtown is two hours during rush hour. There is no alternative as there is with the Gold Line. No freeway, no Metro Link. The MTA should re-evaluate it’s priorities and build where their highest ridership reside not where there is open fields and little ridership currently.

I know it it’s years away, but I would love to see a stop at the Getty Center for the Sepulveda Pass subway. Not only for the hundreds of employees commuting there daily, but all the visitors (numbers rising each year). Do any of you think this is possible??

Good question. We won’t know station locations until the project is further along in the study phase. I do think the studies will have to address the issue of getting people from the Pass project to the Getty.